Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 28 October 2008

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 75 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Template:Cite_study

Kudos and much thanks! –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

(re) benimerin and flag ratios

Hi there... Enric, what can I say? Just go ahead as he won't stop! Just take a look at Talk:Senyera Real. You'll see for yourself... Tell me what's your decision... Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII 18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that 2:3 is correct or not. Both are correct, and both are used in different cases. In the case of 1:2, it's used when it's alone, specially in historical meaning, and 2:3 when flag of Spain is used together. There's no law telling that, because it's tradition, and traditions sometimes aren't written anywhere. But, in any case, there's no reason to override sistematically all depictings of 1:2 as Maurice27 is doing, in way to make it dissappear quite completelly from wp. It's supposed from him that as in 1:2 the "senyera" part is bigger depicted 2:3 within flag of Valencia, so he is against this symbol as he clearly showed an anticatalanism biasing. Salut. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See? That's what I meant... He just doesn't care... --MauritiusXXVII 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I've no intention to replace 2x3 by 1x2 everywhere from Misplaced Pages. But Maurice27 is replacing elsewhere all 1x2 depictings by 2x3. I'm only undoing this replacements, I'm not replacing those 2x3 that has been put in first. There's no mention about the Valencian autonomous flag in ratios, but only as a flag of City of Valencia because of a law to municipalities (2x3), not to the autonomous community wich is not applicable. No official ratios is used, but there are photos that illustrates perfectly wich is the costume, both ratios are correct. Anyway, it was Maurice who started to be unrespectful overriding the mediation done in Talk:Flag of Valencia after a several months, replacing all 1x2 depictings by 2x3 under no reason.

And, again, I've no intention to undoing editings from others. In Valencian Community the new editing is from me, adding new info with this template. Valencian is Catalan, as Castellano is Spanish. The user who are undoing editions are Mountolive and Maurice27. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 10:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But you're overriding that the sources provided by Maurice is ONLY applicable to municipalities flags, not to the flag of the autnomous community. This is what the Act is saying: "entidades locales", it refers to municipalities, not to Auotonomous Communities. The law about the flag of Valencian Community has no mention to proportionssee this. This is not appliable to the flag of the Valencian Community, so in this case he's in the same situation as me: only photos showing that the senyera is 2:3 together flag of Spain, while I'm showing that 1:2 is used when it's hoisted alone.

The compromise solution was that both are correct, and both can be depicted here, just the same I was saying from a long time ago. Because both are correct, and both ratios, as a flag of Autonomous Community of Valencia, are unsourced as official flag of it, but clearly used in "real world". There's no reason, so, to replace a ratio by the other one, I haven't do this. Maurice was starting to replacing, overriding the compromise solution, so I'm undoing this unrrespectul attitude.

As the compromise solution reached, the Valencian senyera in 2:3 must be used in Valencia city, because of local law. And because of this equality of the solution, 1:2 can be used as Autonomous Community, as both ratios are used in public buildings. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You continues to ignoring that 2:3 for flag of Autonomous Community is not referred anywhere, and the evidence given by Maurice27 is only appliable for entidades locales, that is, for municipalities. So, replacing sistematically one ratio by another is not justified in any case. Both you and Maurice27, should give source that support the usage of 2:3 for the Flag of the Autonomous Community of Valencia, not only me for 1:2. As for me, I will undo all the replacings made by Maurice27 after the compromise of solution. Cheers. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Enric, You asked me not to edit war to restore the Calvo & Gravalos reference, letting Benimerin state on the talk page what problems he has with the reference to see if we can reach a compromise there...

Well, you seem to begin understanding how this users acts (Erasing sources; claiming sources not to be acceptable (even if the book has an ISBN code); negliging scans of the book made only to make him believe it (even if the ISBN code is proof enough for the source to be shown in wikipedia); satisfying the burden of proof; Being reverted having brought like ¿6-7 sources? (in addition to all these brought by an annon editor) meanwhile he hasn't brought ANY SINGLE ONE; Having to deal with him accusing me of lying about the authenticity of the scan... etc...etc...).

Like with sclua, you seem to be following the good path with him. Asking him for references, asking him to explain his edits etc... You are in front now. Do what you believe must be done in order to reach a consensus, but I warn you it will be impossible with him (as shown by his last edits).

On the other hand, understand I already tried all that before as proved by the hundreds of Kb of writing in several talk-pages, so I believe my point already explained. If you need any help or information, I will be glad to be of help.

I'm not at home these days full-time. I'll probably have the chance to scan the book this week-end, but, the text about the flag was already written in the reference and an example of another ratio flag is already present in the very same scan (The flag of Castile-La Mancha is despicted just below the valencian one as a 1:2 flag).

For the sake of everybody's benefit and the respect I owe you, I will stop reverting him while you discuss with him. cheers. --MauritiusXXVII 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Let's see if I can get Benimeri to follow wikipedia policies. Btw, that reminds me that I still have to clean up after some of the stuff that Sclua broke :P --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Frencher

Is this guy User:Frencher running some kind of fantasy-baseball-league game with radio personalities, then altering Misplaced Pages to match his game? That's what seems to be going on, but I don't want to go further until I get a reality check from you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me see:

provides no sources for his changes

when questioned, he is unresponsive or leaves only confusing misterious messages

never communicates at talk pages of articles

local editors provide RL confirmation of hoaxes

when providing sources, he only links to the main page of the website, and not to the relevant page with the info

unlinks pages that don't fit his changes, with no explanations given for why the link is no longer valid

extraordinary claims with no proof " has most requested hits that you've aired for all listeners"

when he creates an unsourced article, and other editor tries to find sources, the details on the sources differ significantly from the ones on the article. For example, for Request Express, the relevant source lists different DJs (Laila instead of DJ Martin). When searching google to confirm his version, the relevant hits are from the wikipedia article that he created or from sites using wikipedia as source

adds items to lists with no explanation or comment , and there is never any confirmation by other editors of any of his additions

there is a IP creating hoaxes on the same topic area , and some details of those hoaxes appear on the contributions of that editor (compare this edit that introduces a hoax and several djs with this edits that changes djs. Both add "Lil'lsoy" to the list, a name that returns zero hits on google .

the unverifiable details are mixed with easily verifiable ones, which makes the unverifiable ones even more suspicious. On the above edit, the addition of "Dahnnie" is correct, see google search and his profile at Star FM website . That same website has no profile for "Lil'lsoy".

he is discovered after a wave of hoaxes on articles that he edits

So, yes, this guy is most probably creating hoaxes all around, and he is using also User:125.60.252.50 to do it. In some cases he introduces correct stuf, but that is always mixed with obvious hoaxes. Also, he's just wasting other editors' time, since every one of his edits has to be checked for hoaxes. (You can copy this list somewhere else if you need it as proof). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Senyera Vs. Flag of Catalonia

Enric, I was reading the Senyera article and I found out it has many similarities with the Coat of arms of Catalonia Vs. Coat of arms of the Crown of Aragon "problem" we had some weeks ago.

The content of the Senyera article rather feats in a "generalistic" article about the flags derived from the medieval arms of the Crown, while it lacks of the specific information about ratios, construction sheet and legislation of the present flag of Catalonia. It is a similar case to the Flag of Valencia, when I decided to create a separate article (as "Flag of Valencia", before Xinese-v changed it to "Señera real" opening la caja de los truenos).

So, my wonders are, if you believe that it is reasonable (before doing it in the talk-page) to propose to make the Senyera article a specific article about the vexillological symbol of the arms of Aragon which could include in its content a disambiguation or link to its heirs, the Aragonese, Balear, Catalan and Valencian flags.

I guess some Catalanists users will complain for not "reserving" the name Senyera as the Catalan flag (Benimerin at the head), but I really believe it will improve the chances to make a good specific article about the flag of Catalonia without having to be extremely cautious not to hurt the feelings of people from other regions which also claim the "Senyera" or "Señera" as theirs.

Tell me about your feelings... Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII 22:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like quite a good idea. It's obvious that a Flag of Aragon article will have very different content from Flag of Valencia, Flag of Majorca and Flag of Catalonia, and that all of them will have a lot of duplicate content that should be merged into a single article on the common origins. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll open the debate in the talk-page. Would you be so kind to copy/paste your answer there? cheers. --MauritiusXXVII 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Hi Enric!

Thanks for the warning. All your points are correct. Yes , "FOPOY" is an ridiculization of "FYROM". Yes, Greeks might get angry-same as Macedonians can get angry because of FYROM.--Aradic-es (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I though that FOPOY is My original invention. LOL

anyway , the insults made by greek users are much heavier.

Such as User:DIMISM2008 here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradic-es (talk • contribs) 19:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi both,

Sorry if I insulted you Aradic-es. I will not discuss which was the most insulting comment. I didn't come up with the word FYROM. Your country agreed to use it on 1993... Just think that when you use the word Macedonia it is an insult for me and my country too. As I said this word is a part of our history too. Just think that YOU are "less" Macedonians than some others are. My insult come after yours. Do I lie? Anyway, sorry...--DIMISM2008 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To DIMISM, Aradic is Croatian. Just reflect on some of your comments now....

To Aradic, I don't think anybody thought of the P as "pashalik", so in a way it is your own invention ;)

To Enric, keep up the good work :) BalkanFever 06:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes... I noticed that he is Croatian but that was too late... lol He should be more carefull then. Anyway, I will rephrase: "Just think that Slav Macedonians are "less" Macedonians than some other are" and of course this: "Just think that when you use the word "Macedonians" to describe the ethnic group on the north of Greece it is an insult for me and my country too", does not change.--DIMISM2008 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Semen Images

If you have time to participate and offer your honest opinions regarding the images in the semen article, we would appreciate it. Although one editor seems to have the view that having no image would be beneficial for the article, I don't think that he consciously has censorhsip in mind. Another editor things that four images of semen may be more than necessary -- he may be right about that. Atom (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(re) official images

I sincerely have no idea. There was a case here, in which User:Zscout370 changed the name of one of the flags so as to stop the edit war: "Redoing of http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Flag_of_the_Land_of_Valencia_%28official%29.svg so it fits the 2x3 ratio (and to stop an edit war)".

I also found this article Misplaced Pages:Image renaming. Looks like we have to ask for the renaming to admins. --MauritiusXXVII 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources to create coat of arms of valencia

I saw your edit about it... Would you be willing to cooperate on it? I have a sandbox section in my user page which could be a good place to start creating it. Tell me about it... Cheers.--MauritiusXXVII 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Emo

Hi, I just wanted to express a quick word of thanks for contributing to the emo article and actually providing reliable sources to back up your claims. Too many editors are simply tossing out their own opinion on the matter, without any attempt at referencing, and expecting the rest of us to accept it as fact.

Aurum ore (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Dear Enric Naval,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : Elwin Marg was an optometrist  ! appreciate your comment, Discussion is about whether or not the profession of Elwin Marg should be mentioned in the external link section. Seeyou (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comics Guaranty LLC

Thanks for the help with Comics Guaranty LLC. If the vandal actually bothered to read the article, they would see that the current version is not without criticism of the company. However, I just noticed that since this person isn't getting their way at the CGC article, they grafted their version of the article to comic book collecting instead. *sigh* --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that's such a sneaky move from him. I added it also to my watchlist. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Love the lolcat, BTW. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

basement cat also wants you to assume good faith :) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Remote Viewing Historical Extenders

Hello Enric;

I have gone back to the Wiki "Remote Viewing" discussion area, in response to additional information on the subject. I hope that What I have provided will give a better improved understanding on the word and interpertation of "Remote Viewing".

I've had this ability since I was a child, and when I was professionally tested and utilized in the subject of RV. As an individual that been there and done it, I can discuss this subject in an open and objectiveable professional manner. Looking foward in helping you improving this article.

With Good Intentions;

A. Edward Moch Psychical Analyst and Consultant.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Underblast's self-made policies

Hi! Do you still remember the guy that keeps on editing Philippine radio articles in his self-made rules? (User:Pinoybandwagon) Take a look at this comment by User:Underblast. He seems to be back at his attitude of putting his own policies in Misplaced Pages. -Danngarcia (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Enric Naval said in my talk page that What I did on Radio Station articles looks like a good compromise that avoids edit wars and does not misuse too much the infobox, and he can live with it. He thanked me for trying to find an intermediate solution and for actually following the manual of style on the lead formatting. See User_talk:Underblast#name_field_on_Template:Infobox_Radio_station. Underblast (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think Underblast is right here. Looking at this diff showing both versions, his version complies better with WP:NC. However, Underblast, please don't leave comments saying that articles should follow your own conventions. You should point people to the relevant policy page, and if possible use the talk page to do that.

Also, if you find that some editor makes a comment about making the lead in a different way, please consider looking at his arguments of why the lead should be different and tweaking your version if he makes a good argument. Misplaced Pages is not static, so the preferred version can change from time to time.

Danngarcia, you are right about pointing people to his own self-made policy. However, Underblast is probably right about how the lead should be written (see below).

For both: in this case the relevant policy is not WP:NC but Misplaced Pages:Lead_section#Bold_title, which says to use the title of the article on the bold part of the lead, and then bold also alternative names. Underblast's vesion follows the style guideline better. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Morpheuzzz Violating WP:NC Radio Stations on 99.5 RT (a.k.a. DWRT-FM)

User:Morpheuzzz had been violating WP:NC Radio Stations on 99.5 RT (a.k.a. DWRT-FM) in this link. According to the first paragraph, we should use the CALLSIGN first, but User:Morpheuzzz used the callsign and frequency instead. Let's fix these things up to make User:Morpheuzzz use the CALLSIGN first in every Radio Station Article. Underblast (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Giovanni di Stefano incomplete

You recently filed a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves to move the page Giovanni di Stefano to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK

I understand now, so I should stop reverting fascist albanian POV? Whenever I see something totally POV (like Republic of Kosovo in Albanians article) I shouldn't edit it to NPOV because it is disruptive? And whenever I revert such a pov I will be called a vandal and someone who makes personal analysis? That's pathetic. WIKIPEDIA is turning to fascist! --Forsena (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

When you say anything has to do with Serbia AND Kosovo then you are saying Kosovo is not Serbia, Kosovo is separate country. That's Albanian POV, but we're looking to make all wikipedia users happy and we can make that but not claiming any false and unrecognized countries. If UN recognizes Kosovo-Metohija as a part of Serbia (and it does) then you cannot make borders between Serbia and Kosovo. In article Albanians there are several POVs, first of all HOW COULD you revert my anti-POV (when I removed Republic of Kosovo flag and Kosovo as a country). There is also a problem with unreliable sources that say there are over 1,960,000 Albanians in Kosovo . That is ridiculous. --Forsena (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC).

Thanks!

You are a good fairy. Thank you for fixing my tags on my User_Talk page. ::hugs:: -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox

I see you've been having some trouble with SqueakBox. Has he also been routinely ignoring NPOV guidelines and reverting edits without consulting the talk page in your case? Also, any personal attacks from him? Agnapostate (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, he has done some of that, but he has done no personal attacks (notice that warning people for edits to articles is not considered a personal attack on wikipedia). Also, I read the two sources to one of the sentences in dispute, and I agree with his edits to the goldsmith's article.

(moved part of this comment to Talk:Neil_Goldschmidt#Latest_edit_war)

Squeakbox is right on this case. I also see that other editors agree with this assessment. Notice that my complaints to Squeakbox are only about his edits to the Giovanni article, and they don't extend to his edits on other articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

IMo we need to invite all those who oppose or support my deletion to engage in mediation, see Josh Z's edit on the subject at hand, for instance. But its you who set up the mediation so its your call right now, my own participation is unconditional until we start talking about the subject bio. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I was doubting between leaving a note on the talk page of the article or leaving notes to individual editors. I think I'll leave notes to editors, and then leave a note on the talk page only if it looks like necessary Oh, doh, it must be standard to add a warning to the talk page of the article, there is even a template for doing it {{RFMF}} :-/ . Gonna check up the names of everyone who participated on related threads and/or reverted or restored the edit. P.D.: Done. And now, time for sleep, and tomorrow I can make out the discussion thing works. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for your message about this - I couldn't see that the exclusion of the information was warranted as a BLP vio, but I am not sure I can add anything to your request for mediation - Presumably the mediator/admin will see the entry and the talk page and the facts will speak for themselves. My belief is that the information about GDS's exclusion from NZ is a notable episode in his life, and not there just to 'do him down' as SB seems to think. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

it would be helpful if both you and Geni could participate in mediation, especially given the case is likely to go to arbcom if mediation fails. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Weeeee :) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tanoli

so that always changes, it is clear the tanolis soon pashtons origin of afghanistan is not Indian and not of the same branch of pakistan Tanoli lives in Khalabat hosted the tribe Tanoli Utmanzai where most speak Pashto and HINDKO, from the tribe of Tanoli Tarbell villages and the homeland Tanoli Tanawal majority branch of Tanoli speak Pashto, but there are also those who call themselves Tanolis speak HINDKO that many Hazara tribes of pakistan pashton speak this language, the tribe of Barlas not have to see anything, also argue that have migrated from a place called "Tanubal River" in Afghanistan Tanoli Some tribes still live in Gardaiz and Ghazni (both cities in afghanistan and pakistan race of Tanoli also spoke Pashto, but in the Hazara area in pakistan HINDKO speak Urdu and where most speak this language, also my family also belongs to the tribe of Tanoli and we speak Pashto language itself, if you're too Tanoli and does not speak Pashto, spoken another language with this thing about us is not about nothing And for your information Tanolis Swat came to Afghanistan after the invasions of Sabuktagin Sultan.They came to form a new state. The head of the Swat state at that time was Anwar Khan Tanoli, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.226.89 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, you have provided no reliable sources for the claims that Tanoli were Pashtun. You have to realize that Tanoli progressively adopted Pashtun language, and that the tribes may have mixed and inter-married, but that happened later. You just think that you are Pashtun because you see many modern Tanoli that speak Pashtun, but Tanoli didn't speak Pashtun originally. You are just trying to insert your personal opinion which is not based on reliable sources, and you are also mercilessly spamming pages with your version which has no sources. At this point, you still have no sources, and you have vandalized a great number of pages. How exactly did you expect me to respond to your actions? Stop copy/pasting your personal theories everywhere, and start getting some reliable sources that explain Tanoli's origin in a neutral way. And don't tell no to edit an article just because I don't speak the language of the subject, this is the wikipedia on english language, so you only need to be able to read an write english to edit articles here. And it's not about Tanoli, it's about having articles sourced on reliable sources, and not on what some person on the internet thinks that the history, ok? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"I saw a comment on Slashdot about this matter"

On my talk page, you said "I saw a comment on Slashdot about this matter". Do you still have the link? I'd love to see it! Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello for the first time

We should specifying if the user is a country or territory or a sports club. I will fix it.Mike Babic (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

G'day, I replied here. Giggy (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Names

Of course, I am just tired of people keeping double standards. Kapnisma ? 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia

Hi Enric. You don't need but simply google the term and see the kind of sites they refer to it. All of them Slavic Macedonian and most of them ultra-nationalist. What I might agree to though, is that in the native Slavic Macedonian language, it is not ALWAYS used in an irredentist context, because they are taught that Macedonia is divided in these three regions in their schools. Some people there genuinely believe that these are the terms used in international academia. However, these terms have never gained acceptance outside a Slavic context. In the West the term is non-existent. In Greece it is offensive. In Bulgaria it was used during the Macedonian conflicts of the beginning of the century and is not used anymore (since it was also deemed offensive). So when I see people pushing for these terms inclusion, I naturally am cautious.--   Avg    19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it's used a lot by those, but it's also used by other neutral sources like human rights associations and that it's a natural result of being near to Aegean sea, just like islands on that sea are called Aegean islands. You ought to consider that most people will just consider it a name of a region, just like in the Britannica, where it's just a handy name. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some issues that you might find interesting having a look. There is some very real history regarding the Slavic need for access to the south seas. Bulgarians for example wanted "Aegean" Macedonia to be their passage to the Aegean Sea and this is an undeniable fact. In a Slavic context, only Macedonia has any connection to the Aegean. In a Greek context, "Aegean" is completely unlinked to Macedonia, since it refers to the Aegean islands. I'm sorry to say that "handy" hardly qualifies in terms of encyclopedicity, because there are "handy" terms from Greeks referring to Republic of Macedonia and ethnic Macedonians ("Skopje" and "Skopjans"), but I don't see them anywhere in any article, without explicitly mentioning that they are offensive. And at the same time, the offensive term "Aegean Macedonia" is on the dab article and also the even more offensive term Aegean Macedonians has its own article. So to sum up: Aegean Macedonia is used only in a Slavic context (and mainly by irredentists). Even the main article on Aegean Macedonia specifically mentions all these things (and I haven't had anything to do with it).--   Avg    22:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just a geographical term. It doesn't have a pejorative term "Aegeans" to go with it. There's a difference between a geographical term that some find offensive and a term that was coined with the intention of being offensive. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Enric I'm afraid you're missing some major elements of this story. You seem to have adopted the claim that the term "Skopje" has been created from scratch in order to be offensive, but this is simply not the case. It has been universally used in Greece for decades because names containing the word Macedonia are reserved only for Greek Macedonia. It's the Slavic Macedonians who find it offensive. In fact, Slavic Macedonians in their speech never refer to Greek Macedonians as such, they always refer to them as only Greeks, because they have reserved anything Macedonian for them. So see "Aegean Macedonia" in this context. Since it contains the word "Macedonia", automatically creates a link between Slavic Macedonians and the area, as something 100% Greek would never contain the word Macedonia in a Slavic Macedonian context. Slavic Macedonians may not have created the term in order to be offensive, but the Greeks find it offensive because it implies a Slavic Macedonian presence. And in any case "Skopje" is "handy", however I agree it is not appropriate in an non-Greek context. In the same manner, "Aegean Macedonia" might be handy, however it is not appropriate in a non-Slavic Macedonian context. Anyway, following the "everything should be included" principle, I accept it to be mentioned, however it should also be mentioned that is not a scholarly term and it is only used by Slav-Macedonians.--   Avg    13:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Avg, we are back again at the same place. Greeks refuse the existance of anything called Macedonia outside of Greece, so they use "skopjan", which is used on a derogative way, and they refuse to use "Aegean Macedonia" because then that implies the existance of Virdian and Parn macedonias (however they are spelled). I repeat, Aegean Madedonia is a geographical term that happens to be used by irredentists, but it's also accepted as a valid geographical name. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to flood your talkpage and it is certainly not my intention to lecture you on the nuances of international politics, however I definitely would be more cautious when I use the word "accepts". This name is not accepted, nor mentioned in any treaty whatsoever. Anyway, Misplaced Pages is mainly interested on another issue, who uses it (the description and not prescription thing). This is why it has to be mentioned that only one side is using it. Third parties use "Greek Macedonia". --   Avg    15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I already pointed you at one neutral source using it, a human rights association , to which I add this paper, google scholar shows both irredentist sources and neutral sources, and other editors have pointed you at the Britannica article using the term. So third parties don't use only greek macedonia.

Btw, you are mixing your arguments, I didn't mention any treaty, that must be from some discussion with BF, and anyways a geographical term does not need to be mentioned on any treaty to be accepted or used :) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Simple vandalism can be reported there. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I hardblocked IP 119.30.69.117 for one month. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) There are some many noticeboards to choose from.... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun people

Do not remove images from the infobox of Pashtun people article. You are reverting the article to the racist banned User:Beh-nam's version. , User:PashtoonGhafar is confirm sockpuppet of Beh-nam, he is young ethnic Tajik from Toronto, Canada, and he wants to make fun of Pashtuns by putting stupid pics in the infobox, he wants to show the world that Pashtuns are taliban and terrorist, he is using this IPs 67.68.52.82. He is bashing Pashtun people and you're helping him succeed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.70.82 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, NisarKand, stop disrupting wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Specialforces in Kosovo

Hi, can you please add this info, to the article about the Kosovo war. Apparently there was a question regarding my sources. Please add in appropriate place:

" HJK ( Special forces of Norway ) was the first specialforces to go into Pristina. The HJK job was to clean the way between the striding parties and to make local deals to implement the peace deal between the Serbians and the Kosovo Albanians. This was done under very difficult sircumstanses. The HJK was chosen to do the job, ahead of American and French special forces. The recomandation to use Norwegian HJK, came from the British SAS. "

Here is a source stating that US and Norwegian elite forces were the first in theater. The specific info mentioned before is from a Norwegian book on the subject. Article: http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990420_01_n.shtml

Book: " Norges hemmelige krigere " by author Tom Bakkeli. The book is in Norwegian: ISBN: 9788248907220 : http://www.norli.no/NORLI_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?item=2965230 Mortyman (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Do you understand the concept of authorship and how is different from ownership? Authorship is when you author something. There is nothing wrong or negative about being the author of something, (it's also a factual and not a judgment thing, you are either the author or you are not), ownership is a completely different concept. Please learn and understand the difference between these two, it's important for basic understanding of GDFL which was the topic of discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I would agree with Hobartimus that the authorship of something is as black and white as that - authorship is often disputed, even when the facts are known - for example some refer to directors as 'authors' of films, others would use producers or writers. Collaborative processes are a mire of authorship disputes. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a really hard time trying to guess what your problem was, you think I wanted to delete the other article or just misunderstood the discussion in edit summaries about WP:GFDL? Hobartimus (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I answer on your page right now --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded on my talk. Hobartimus (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for editing @r$eholes for civility

I understand civility, but this did just cost me and others several hours of edit and poking around in PubMed to fix the dangerous and misleading treacherous and suicidal crap added to medical articles. The concept of civility has its limits. This vandalism was well disguised. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, even annoying vandals don't deserve being called certain things :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care

A tag has been placed on Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy/pasted to User_talk:GeoffreyCP#Posted_your_article_at_the_correct_place, as he is the original author of the article --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

About DTFD and DTFDB

On talk pages, there are some things that really don't belong as stated by the guidelines on WP:TALK. I created these templates to mark these sections. I originally created it when I saw people placing ban templates and vandalism warnings on the talk page of User:Example. I put the templates over these section with the comment that "this is all refined stupidity and wikipedia is not a place to chat, joke, and do things for laughs." As for the technecal functions of the template, it's actually a modified OOCO (out of chronological order). DTFD goes on top and DTFDB goes on the bottom of the talk page section you'd like to discuss as to weather to delete it or not. So use it as you wish. --Ipatrol (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Missed city?

Missed city? You mean Graz? Russian Luxembourger (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant Lyon. I had classified as a city not on the official list, but it's actually on the list --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GDS

Enric Naval, with reference to —

I suppose if GDS wishes to go fishing, I could have an associate meet him at La Guardia, and then we could head south. Unfortunately, I do not use email: too risky, too many predators at large. Tell GDS to give you his Flight-info and suggest "bonefishing" in Key West; I'm not certain if his waiver will permit entry across the Mexican border. (In December though, I may be on Wikibreak, skiing in Switzerland...) *smile* -- Hag2 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Saint_Petersburg#See_also

Hi there,

You seemed to have some interest for Saint_Petersburg, can you come to Talk:Saint_Petersburg#See_also and give your opinion regardless of what you think about my contributions? I am looking for a completely "third party view". Thanks,

Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Louise Hopkins page

Enric, I'd like to put three images of her paintings on the Louise Hopkins page and she has given permission, via her gallery owners, Mummery and Schnelle, for me to do so. I have a permissions email from Wolfram Schnelle. Can I do a similar image license page to the one I did for Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi, over which you helped me?

Many thanks. abafied (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Enric. I'll now reduce it to two as the third would not look good on the page. I can justify the two because each shows a completely different style - one aggressive and one lyrical. Presumably I'd have to put each justification on each's image page? Perhaps you would let me know. 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing comments from discussion page

Hi! I've noticed an act of removing comments by an administrator from a discussion page in talk page of the Greece article, regarding a map that had been recently removed from the article. All the time in wikipedia, I have noticed that comments do not get erased, but hidden into a beige box in case they are offensive (I've seen you doing this). So, I would like to know if this is valid.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of 3 edits by that IP, 2 have been attacks on Fut Perf. And one of them is starting a votation on banning him. Yeah, in such a clear case it's ok to remove the comments by WP:RPA remove personal attacks. And, yes, unless it's a very harsh personal attack, you are right that it's better to collapse the content and make an explanation of why the comments are inappropiate (like explaning that you don't "vote" on talk pages to ban editors, and explaining where he should complain about an editor's behaviour). It gives better results on the long run.

Btw, if you see someone summarily removing edits from an IP, ask him first before reverting him, he could be reverting a banned user. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, I don't revert talk pages.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Enric, I owe you an apology. I was not prepared for the sweeping "in & on" changes, and I should have paid more attention. Nevertheless, the two characters who appeared suddenly from nowhere annoyed me greatly because of their zeal, especially the one who took it upon himself to revert. The subject of "in & on" is a grammatical nicety that, I suppose, ought to have been addressed on an individual basis. Anyway, please accept my apology for bringing this nonsense into the foreground, and ignore me completely when I make off-handed remarks. Hag2 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. From my experience on the spanish wikipedia, if you do as much as change an accent citing a certain gramatical rule that you learnt on school, you can expect an admin to suddenly appear, correct you mercilessly, and indoctrinate you on how the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language changed that gramatical rule just last year. I swear that they can smell those edits :) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:long Polish comment

It is a public domain text about the corresponding geographical entity from Zygmunt Gloger. I like to keep it there until somebody finally translates the content into the article. We have space, and if we remove it, fewer people will consider doing this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point about wikisource. Wikisource pl has a page for Gloger; the texts should be moved to - so far red-linked - entry "Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

FYRoM POV pushers doing reverts on "Greek Position"

Hi Enric. I had a great experience with you the first time so I thought I'd come back to you again for a little help.

A FYRoM national and Futper (whom I consider an admin with an anti-Greek agenda despite his occasional reverts against FYRoM nationals that engage in obvious defacement).... have twice reverted one of my edits (and that of another Greek contributor that agreed with me) on the Macedonian Naming dispute article. I opened a section on the matter on the article talk page yesterday (the Ottoman census data and official US government position of the non-existence of a Macedonian ethnic group in 1944 and viewing such as "demagoguery" against Greece)... to which neither replied yet still found time to resort to revert warring on the issue.

The small edit in question includes TWO references (both verifiable)... in a section called the Greek position (i.e. a section explicitly dedicated to Greek POV)... is supported by two Greek WP contributers (and my guess the vast majority if they knew about the current debate)... and yet now FYRoM supporters are representing the "Greek position"?

IMO they should either be arguing on the talk page why Greek contributers (with many edits under their belt on this issue) aren't better qualified to provide details on the Greek POV... or they shouldn't be making the reverts(FYRoM nationals are more likely to offer the "Greek position?). I realize FP is an admin but Misplaced Pages's admin code of conduct explicitly states admins don't own articles any more than typical authentic contributers.

I am considering a future ANI/RFC on FP's behavior (based on his editing practices I see him in a COI) but of course me being a new contributer, being Greek background (which puts me in my own potential COI), and he being an admin... I need to build up my case carefully first (to hopefully avoid being railroaded by pre-existing WP admin politics and friendships). (btw - I have talked frankly about this potential FP COI issue with several admins... who appear to be on the fence for now...which I find promising given the polarity of our influence on WP)

Until such time though, I'd appreciate it if you gave both the FYRoM national (Cukiger) and FP a suggestion/warning to stop making reverts on my edit (unless they plan to argue the point on the talk page). I believe the points are extremely relevant to the "Greek position", have been mentioned many times by Greek media and politicians, and are easily verifiable with a quick Google search. Further details on the points in question can be found here but if you need further convincing or details first please feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Crossthets (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that Hxseek is making valid points about the census. Concretely about the census classifying people on religion and not ethnicity, and about not existing any macedonian church. Dunno about what Hxseek says about the americans, I would need to know the historical circumstances.

I made a comment on the talk page, my main point of contention is whether the greek government has used those arguments or not. That section should not become a pile-up of all arguments that any greek editor feels that support the greek view, it should have only the most notable arguments used by the official greek position, like statements by the greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, very notable papers or books by scholars, etc.

By the way, you'll need to open a WP:RFC/USER, also called RFC/U, not a normal RFC. You'll need to get at least other editor to agree to the RFC and sign it. Notice that there is already a RFC/U at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, altough it's a RFC about removals of images, and it has nothing to do with greek topics. When you go to this section to create a new RFC you will have to use as name "Future Perfect at Sunrise 2", with a "2" at the end (to avoid name conflicts with the already existing RFC) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to put such ideas in his head. You ought to remind him also that RfCs need to be certified not just by any random editor but by people who actually have tried to solve a dispute previously. Since there is no legitimate dispute, let alone any attempt at resolution, such an RfC would be nothing but harassment and would easily get him blocked. I've truly had enough of the never-ending disruption from this person, and polite gentle hints are lost on him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, ok. I hadn't thought that he could get in trouble by filling an RFC/U without atemptting first other paths. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is FP's version of "politeness" Enric (and an example of how dishonestly he is reporting to you). One of his first comments to me (as a newb).

Every sane person with normal adult intelligence can see that your allegations against B.F. are nonsensical. If you can't see that yourself, it's probably no use me trying to explain it to you. I will simply block you if you continue with this topic, for being either a malicious troll or too clueless for rational discussion

Or how about when he disagrees with several Greek contributers on a questionable map he made and refers to them as a "gang of clowns"? Does that seem like proper language by an admin with a newb Enric? I'd also like to add... "neutral" Futper ignored a FYRoM national that made 3 temporarily disputed edits within a 2 hour period on the exact same issue (still waiting for sources other than FYRoM government to confirm Italy)... and a boatload of other edits by same user within 24 hour period on the same article by same user (Cukiger)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Macedonia_naming_dispute&diff=248112133&oldid=248108921

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Macedonia_naming_dispute&diff=248106748&oldid=248102843

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Macedonia_naming_dispute&diff=248094699&oldid=248085303

(Please check history of article to confirm,

It was also suggested by another admin (Todd1) that because he has a history with me he should leave the threats of blocks to other admins.... which he's now ignored by leaving this gem on my talk page.

You have violated the three-revert rule on Macedonia naming dispute. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me FP. But why are you threatened me again.. especially after you've been gentlemanly suggested by another admin not to do so....when my edits in question (over the 24 hour period) were not on the same issue ( only made 2 edits on same issue)... and that my total number of edits that did exceed 3 were reverts (which 3RR does mention),,, were to revert those of a FYRoM national Cukiger (that's done far more than 3 in that period)... THAT YOU DID NOT WARN??? (I might add... none of these points did FP see fit to disclose to you here Enric)

I will work on digging up specific comments by Greek politicians to address your concerns Enric. (btw - Hxseek appears to be a FYRoM national, the League of Nations during the period also did not record the existence of a Macedonian ethnic group either, the American government called talk of a macedonian ethnic group demagoguery against Greece (by communists)... and neither did FP nor Cukiger see fit to argue their own POV for reverting on the article talkpage....whereas I did)

All I ask is you take my concerns of admin bias by FP very seriously despite that I'm a relatively new user. I've seen a tendency by some admins to instinctively cover each others backs rather than accept WP rules that admins as contributors have no special rights nor insights into the issues at hand...and can indeed have biases just like other human being. (I am not implying this of you btw.) I realize being of Greek background I am in a potential conflict of interest here... but I also think its common sense that the "Greek Postion" should not be dictated by contributors that constantly show a bias for the FRYoM perspective. (the vast majority of which appear to be FYRoM nationals)

Thanks for at least listening to my concerns without being patronizing or threatening me Enric I'm not sure if I'm going to go with RFC or ANI because different admins seem to interpret Misplaced Pages rules on the issue differently. For now I'm just going to keep logging FP incidents in order to continue bringing substance to me beef (that FP given his pro-FRYoM positions on the issues is in a COI). If I sound at all angry at FP... I am. From day one with my long history of experiences with him I feel he's exhibited bias towards both me and other Greek contributors that challenge him on the validity of own edits).

If other admins want to block or ban me without taking my concerns seriously before that time.. I can't do much about it but I would rather have that occur than back down on my principles. While some Greek contributors are more diplomatic on the issue I'd personally call his behavior outright bigotry. I will not see my ethnic group erased from history by decades of communist propaganda and people that have some sort of bone to pick with Greeks. --Crossthets (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are more example of FP "balanced editing" when it has anything to do with Greek positions. (he constantly undermines Greek ethnicity on any page he can get his hands on)

Recent diffs showing Futper undermining Greece ethnicity

• On the article page of Ancient Macedonians Futper "fixed" the broken phrase...

The Ancient Macedonians (Greek: ?a?ed??e?, Makedónes) were an ancient Greek, according to most researchers,

into

the Ancient Macedonians (Greek: ?a?ed??e?, Makedónes) were an ancient tribe"(Notice how the "Greek" went missing)

• On the talk page of Ancient Macedonians Futper questioned the ethnicity of ancient Macedonians as Greeks.

The political acts of Alexander I tell us something about the political orientation of that king, but hardly about the ethnic background of his subjects

• He completely removed this rather "insignificant" point from the Macedonian naming dispute article.

On May 1st 2007 120 members of the US House of Representatives cosponsored a bill criticizing FYROM for "hostile activities or propaganda" against Greece and urged "FYROM should abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage" and "FYROM to work with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

• From the Greco-Turkish relations article he removing derived from Greek

mainly in the Aegean region around Izmir derived from Greek Smyrna) and in the Pontic region on the Black Sea coast

• On the talk page of Greek language | he added

It is also (nominally alongside Turkish),

into

Greek is the official language of Greece where it is spoken by about 99.5% of the population. It is also (nominally alongside Turkish);;

• On the Ancient Macedonians article page he added...

Avoid Misplaced Pages:lead fixation. There's no need to jam either "Greek" or "according to most researchers" into the lead sentence

• On the Greek and Turkish named places article Futper supported the inclusion of Turkish names on first line of articles of Greek territories.

I've outed myself repeatedly as a rather strong "inclusionist" on the matter of foreign placenames, so I'm going to present a sketch of a maximum inclusionist solution, as a reference for further discussion, knowing that probably not all of this is going to find consensus.

• On the United Macedonia article (an irredentist movement in FYROM) Futper removed a verifiable edit on election numbers (that already existed in other parts of Misplaced Pages) which points to the fact some FYROM nationalists provide vastly inflated numbers of their minority in Greece (i.e. they lie). On removing the factual edit he suggested in the subject header

rv, POV-pushing

• On the Minorities in Greece page Futper removed Slavomacedonians (an unofficial term previously accepted by FYROM nationalists in Greece for decades since there were Greek Macedonians in Greek Macedonia also)

whole section out. It's just duplicating the section above anyway. And no, we do not use "Slavomacedonian". No extra POV naming rules for Greek territory.)

• Futper changed a redirect] for "ethnic Macedonia diaspora" to "Macedonian diaspora' (implicitly taking the position FYROM nationalists should be called "Macedonians" and obfuscating there are other kinds of Macedonian Diasporas

(moved Ethnic Macedonian diaspora to Macedonian diaspora over redirect: in normal English usage this title is unambiguous; any remaining marginal dab needs are taken care of by the dab notice.)

... etc... etc... (still building the list)

Ask yourself Enric where are all his Misplaced Pages article contributions arguing against FYRoM nationalist claims of ancient ethnicity? (which you know first hand are never ending.. why I came specifically to you in this instance) Where are his edits trying to undermine the existence of zillions of other ethnic groups in the world? Why are the vast majority of his Misplaced Pages contributions seemly solely related to undermining Greeks?

Perhaps in the end WP admins will ignore the mounting evidence, cave into internal politics, and block me rather than the person that seems to demonstrate hatred against Greece. I stand firmly by my words though. Despite the occasional blocking of FYRoM nationals that make obvious defacement (part of his job as admin)....FPs personal WP contributions seem to indicate he has an agenda against Greece. Crossthets (talk)

Is there any particular reason why you didn't link to the thread where Future Perfect made the statement above, the one in bold? Could it be that you provoked his clear words by pretending to be stark raving mad? For example, you know, by pretending to be offended by a link from a user page to a map that was printed by one of the most conscientious international newspapers (Le Monde Diplomatique – "first created for a diplomatic audience")? Offended by a map that merely demonstrates the problem of competing regional claims in the Balkans by nationalists, and clearly says so? Offended because you interpreted linking to the map as condoning one of the claims, while completely ignoring the presence of the others?

Let's hope it isn't so. Otherwise I wouldn't see why any serious Misplaced Pages editor should waste your time with you. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Furter just added warning to user Cukiger of 3RR and to ARBMAC

I'd like to note here that Futper has now warned Cukiger long after the incident and only after I complained to you about his double standards in the incident. (the next day). I would say that makes it obvious he's reading my posts to you and trying to cover his tracks... which says something about his authenticity I would think.

He's now added both our names to the admin Notice board (presumably to make himself appear balanced). In his comments against me...

• He makes no mention of his prior foul comments to me as a new user
• he doesn't mention our long history (other than to throw everything in my corner)
• he doesn't disclose another admins Todd's prior recommendation to him to stop threatening me with blocks (and leave it to other admins)
• he neglects to mention both my prior blocks were by him
• he doesn't mention this conversation (nor mention the long delay in warning Cukiger until AFTER I contacted you)
• he makes no mention that he is in a potential conflict of interest (whereas I openly do so)

If that's not evidence of FP being manipulative of his admin powers at the expense of average contributors I don't know what is. Would you please make mention of this discussion on the noticeboard Enric?. Again... regardless if any admin on the fence ends up taking my side or not... I will not back down. Out of principle I'd rather be blocked then tolerate his constant harassment of me and constant undermining of Greek ethnicity. WP isn't FP's personal blog to terrorize Greek contributors that disagree with his anti-Greek POV pushing. --Crossthets (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)